User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 3

Don’t be discouraged
NAC's are difficult to close especially when there are multiple keep and delete !votes, the only time NAC's are easy are either when the nomination was done in Revenge nominations, GAMING and when it’s a snow keep. Infact since I was attacked ferociously last year/early this year about a BADNAC I just decided to leave to sysops. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm certainly not discouraged. I've closed nearly 150 AfDs, the vast majority of which have never been questioned. Good-faith inquiries like the one above are perfectly ordinary, and I'm glad that we were able to find a solution that left everyone happy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gerri Ratliff
Hi. First, thanks for all you do on the project. See your name quite frequently, but I don't know if we've ever actually interacted before. Second, might I respectively request you to unclose this AfD? Neither of the keep !votes were actually based on policy. I hate to make requests like this, especially from someone who does such a good job at closing AfD's, but I think in this case it's warranted. Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the kind words. As for the close, I'm glad to vacate it if you like, but I'm curious what you think would be a "correct" closure. Even if the keep !votes were given zero weight, there would still be just the nom and one delete !vote, which is a pretty clear WP:NOQUORUM. Since soft-deletion is off the table, no consensus would seem to be the only possible closure. If you'd like, I can make the closure "no prejudice against speedy renomination", given that some further discussion would obviously be useful here. That would seem to be more likely to generate consensus, although I'm more than willing to vacate it if that's what you'd prefer. Cheers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the actual close, but the timing. Even though you are perfectly entitled to close it after 7 days after the last relist, in this particular case, I think it should remain open for perhaps some late stragglers to opine, one way or the other. And as to a 2-0 !vote, as per NOQUORUM, a soft delete might be more appropriate. But as I said, you do great work, I've said my piece, so I'll leave it to your discretion.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was writing up my reasoning for simply NPASRing it as I suggested above, but then I realized that it would be far more useful for me to take off my closer hat and put on my editor hat, hopefully allowing for this AfD to reach consensus. While my closure was (probably) valid, I think that participating in the discussion is probably a better and less bureaucratic way forward for everyone. Thanks for approaching this so understandingly, and don't think all you do on the project goes unnoticed. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being open to dialogue. As I said, this is pretty rare for me to make such a request, and it was due to the caliber and competence of your efforts at AfD which led me to do so. Keep up the good work.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lüftner Cruises
Can you please expand your rationale for your closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Lüftner Cruises, specifically your understanding of the "strength-of-argument" put forward by the Keep !voters? Also, why did you close this when WP:NACD specifically says that non-admins should not close and "close calls" which (based on numbers) this one is.  HighKing++ 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Always glad to elaborate. Given the split here (six keeps to four deletes), deleting would require the closer to heavily discount the keep !votes. And I can find no basis for doing that: the keep !voters presented sources and made reasonable arguments that they met ORGCRIT. While the delete !voters explained why they disagreed, that doesn't empower me to ignore the perfectly legitimate arguments made by the other side. As to WP:NACD, the "close calls" rule is intended to prevent non-admins from making decisions in cases where several possible closures might be valid. It doesn't apply to cases like this, where both "keep" and "delete" would be clear supervotes. While the question at issue in the discussion might have been a close call, the question of whether the discussion reached consensus was not. You are of course welcome to bring this up at WP:DRV, but I think a more prudent course would be to wait the requisite amount of time and renominate. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Yes, deleting would require the closer to heavily discount the Keep !votes. As a closer, you should have known that GNG is not the appropriate guideline and that WP:NCORP applies stricter criteria for references used to establish notability. I pointed this out in my !vote and further pointed out that the majority of Keep !voters had not made any cogent arguments based on NCORP (the appropriate guideline) and had not rebutted any of the arguments pointing out specific reasons why the references failed NCORP guidelines. Perhaps I'm missing something but what exactly are the "perfectly legitimate arguments" you saw from the Keep !voters??  HighKing++ 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm quite aware of the GNG–NCORP situation, including the fact that there's no consensus about whether NCORP supersedes the GNG at all. In light of that disagreement, I'm not prepared to discount !votes just because they emphasized the GNG. (After all, WP:N says that a topic is notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)...") Further, the notability guidelines are guidelines to which "occasional exceptions may apply", not ironclad rules to which editors must invariably yield. See WP:IAR, WP:NOTBURO, etc. And regardless, the keep !voters did engage with NCORP-related concerns, even if they didn't say so explicitly: Eastmain, for instance, had a reasonable response to Goldsztajn's ORGCRIT reliability argument. At the end of the day, !vote-weighting cannot take away from the fact that the participants here simply did not agree about the adequacy of the sourcing, and that's sufficient to make this a clear no-consensus close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a question I posed because of a similar situation at another AfD (in case you hadn't noticed) but that question was whether GNG still took *primacy* over NCORP, not whether NCORP *supercedes* GNG. And the answer to that question which did have consensus was that although both are guidelines NCORP has a stricter interpretation of GNG, especially when it comes to sourcing. Even if you want to go down the "GNG is OK" route, you'll still find that WP:SNG (a section in GNG) also points you back to NCORP for sourcing as it says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. So the question invariably comes back to whether there are sufficient references that meet NCORP with the emphasis on in-depth and independent.
 * Your comment that you are not prepared to discount !votes because they emphasise GNG is flawed. Why bother even having NCORP in that case? Which !votes *did* you discount?
 * It is difficult to understand much of what you are saying in the context of the discussion at the AfD. Nobody mentioned IAR and NOTBURO so why bring that up unless you decided that was the basis of your decision (which would be a supervote if you did, no?) You say Eastmain provided a "reasonable" response so clearly you weighed the response in some way. So how did you then weigh Goldsztajn's response to Eastmain which pointed out that nothing that Eastmain said made sense in the context of NCORP requirements? Or did you discount the response? What about my !vote which went into a lot of detail on the arguments presented? What weight did you give to the arguments I made in my !vote? Did my reasoning get discounted? What weight did you place on it? The closer must be able to weigh arguments correctly, otherwise it really just a !vote count and guidelines are largely irrelevant.  HighKing++ 10:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I don't find any of that very convincing, (regardless of whether the participants specifically invoked NCORP, they were still debating the NCORP factors of reliability, independence, etc.), I will vacate the close because it obviously proved to be more controversial than I was expecting. I appreciate your patience. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I in turn appreciate your patience. Despite our different takes on this AfD and the fact that a closing admin will probably reach the same conclusion as you, I think there is a much bigger problem being uncovered and which was highlighted in our discussion. For example, if GNG/NCORP is truly either/or, then why bother at all with NCORP? Also, how exactly does a closer "weigh" the arguments? Is a !vote stating "meets GNG" sufficient to be counted despite a disagreement and if so, are we kidding ourselves by thinking that the content of discussions is truly being correctly weighed and evaluated? All that said, I was impressed with your handling of my whining complaint and I have no doubt you'll have an admin badge in no time.  HighKing++ 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Just want to acknowledge both of you for taking the higher ground on this. I had noticed the closure and more or less had the same reaction as HighKing, but for various reasons decided to leave it alone, perhaps mostly because I thought it would create drama and ... well, maybe I didn't feel Austrian boats were worth it.  Glad you both proved me wrong!  Chapeau! Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Melville Fuller
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Melville Fuller has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA if you decide to move forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, — great work as always. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

JeepersClub
Thanks for initiating the sock investigation. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 16
Do you have some time to look at my current FAC, above? I'm under pressure to get some reviews from the coordinators. Link is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try my best to get to it soon. Feel free to ping me after a few days if I forget. (Oh, and thanks again for reviewing Fuller: it was much appreciated.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
Not sure if you saw my recent comments at WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases talk page section about the navboxes raised earlier this year. I'd like to apologize for a horribly and inexcusably belated response. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Move review for Italia in Comune
An editor has asked for a Move review of Italia in Comune. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Italia in Comune
Why did you straightaway close the discussion at Talk:Italia in Comune as Move. I relisted the discussion at 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC), and you closed this as Move at 04:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC, when no one participated after the relist. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I'll comment at the move review. For future reference, the usual courtesy is to wait for a response: filing a move review six minutes after your inquiry doesn't come across as very friendly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Schneiderman v. United States
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Oh, thank you, Gog: much appreciated! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hard earned, but I hope that won't prevent you from diving straight back in. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Twice, actually. Fat fingers... :) --Blablubbs (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Astana
Regarding the move review.

I pinged you, how could you write anything like that? totally made up.. there is not a single Argument confirming, that Nur-Sultan is now the common Name.

To the contrary, me and Toddy1 have Provided evidence, Astana is the common Name in English.

So Please explain it to me, I want to understand how you could write that.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk)> — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Sim kad (16:30, 4 November 2021)
i want an artist page --Sim kad (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new article can be really challenging, and many people find it easier to focus on improving articles that already exist before they create new ones. You can find a list of ways to help by clicking here to visit the task center. If you really want to create a brand-new article, here are some things to consider:
 * Are you thinking of writing about yourself or someone close to you? This isn't usually a very good idea: you probably have a conflict of interest, making it difficult for you to write about it fairly. Here's a simple explanation of conflicts of interest, and here's a page that specifically discusses writing an article about yourself. If you do have a conflict of interest, you must disclose it.
 * Are you writing about the sort of person who belongs in an encyclopedia? This can be difficult to gauge, and we have lots of rules (called notability guidelines) about it. You can read a very simple explanation here: basically, you should only write an article about someone whom independent and reliable sources (like a book, a news website, or a magazine article) have written about in detail. Sources like Twitter, Facebook, and blogs don't count. If the artist you're thinking of doesn't meet these requirements, chances are you won't be able to write an article about him.
 * If you're sure that these requirements are met, go to this page, which will explain how to write an article and submit it for review. This can be a complicated process, and you might not get it all right on the first try. Read the instructions carefully, and feel free to ask questions if you get confused.
 * I hope this is helpful! I know Wikipedia can be confusing for new editors: you're welcome to ask me if you have any more questions, or you might try going to the Teahouse, where experienced volunteers will provide helpful and friendly advice. Again, welcome! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:FI-film-company-stub
Hello, Extraordinary Writ,

I think rather than tagging a template for speedy deletion, it would be better for you to ask an admin who frequents WP:TFD to handle these deletions. Templates aren't just regular pages like an article, they are transcluded on to other pages and it is better for an admin who works with templates to handle deletions so no harm is done to other articles. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, : I hadn't thought of it. I've reverted all of the transclusions (since they were made by the same blocked sockpuppet); the template is now orphaned and should be eligible for deletion. Thanks again for all you do keeping CAT:CSD clear. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

JM Harlan
Thank you Extraordinary Writ. I think your revisions on the religious points are well-done and, as far as I understand the sources, accurate. And good heavens, impressive on the Fuller article too! Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service, . Thanks for your kind words re Fuller: it was certainly time-consuming, but I very much enjoyed it (and learned plenty). I've recently been (slowly) working on Wiley Rutledge, whose judicial philosophy was precisely the opposite of Fuller's. Perhaps someday I'll get around to Harlan I: he's truly a fascinating figure. Anyways, thanks for stopping by, and do let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Henry Billings Brown
Good luck with Rutledge. I'm working in bits on the bio of the widely-vilified Henry Billings Brown. I used to live in Michigan, and have photos of hundreds of pages of his personal diary, which are kept at the main public library in Detroit. He deserves a full-length book biography. Perhaps after I retire! I'm no fan of his obtuse opinion in Plessy, and he was no hero in other ways either, but he still had some creditable moments. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * History doesn't seem to have been too kind to Brown: the survey in Appendix A of this article puts him below Thomas Todd, who never wrote anything significant at all, and only barely above the suicidal John Rutledge. I suppose one can understand why given the unholy trinity of Plessy, Lochner, and the Insular Cases. Alas – compared to some of his contemporaries (Fuller, Field, Peckham), he actually comes across as a borderline moderate, given his forceful Pollock dissent and his occasional sympathy for the rights of Native Americans. By the way: if you're looking for sources, you can get a remarkable number free online. There's some good biographical material on Brown here, and this book and this book provide an in-depth look at the Court of that era. (The latter one mentions on page 197 that "to Brown's special credit, before his death in September 1913, he conceded that the Court may have been wrong in Plessy and subsequent cases." Quite interesting.) You can also get access to the very useful HeinOnline (which has thousands of volumes of law reviews) for free through the Wikipedia Library. Anyways, it's a pleasure to "meet" you, and I'm glad to see SCOTUS articles getting some attention: many of them are in a rather forlorn state. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks indeed. I was not aware of all of these resources ... tremendously helpful.  Best: Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Brahmi sthiti
Hi, thank you for your volunteer work. May I request you to undo your close of Brahmi sthiti and let an admin handle it. I believe this is a good case of soft delete or a relist (upt 3 relists are allowed). Venkat TL (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd be glad to undo the close if you'd like (I'm always willing to reverse my NACs), but do you really think you're going to get a different outcome? An admin had already noted that soft-deletion wasn't an option, and most of the AfD regulars are loath to relist a third time except in extraordinary circumstances since "[r]elisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended". In these circumstances, closing the discussion as no consensus NPASR is the usual outcome. Again, I'm happy to vacate the closure if you insist, but I'd be curious to hear why you think it's necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was any other article I would have left it at that. This article is total junk. I would like to take my chances with an admin. So it would be very kind of you if you could undo the close. Venkat TL (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well; done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your grace. Venkat TL (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Glad I took this one. Even a 3rd relist was not needed. Venkat TL (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)